Get workflow states for a team, optionally including archived ones. Use this tool to retrieve all statuses in a team's workflow.
Get workflow states for a team
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| teamId | Yes | ID of the team to get workflow states for | |
| includeArchived | No | Whether to include archived states (default: false) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations thoroughly declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the schema (e.g., no mention of response size or pagination), but there is no contradiction. With strong annotation coverage, the bar is lower, and this meets the minimum.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes the target scope ('for a team'). The structure is optimal for quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a straightforward purpose with only two parameters and an existing output schema, so return values are handled elsewhere. Given the annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is sufficient for an agent to call this correctly. It misses minor context like 'archived states are excluded by default', but that is inferable from the schema, so not a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (teamId and includeArchived) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning or context for parameters, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3. The description's simplicity aligns with the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('workflow states for a team'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like linear_createWorkflowState and linear_updateWorkflowState by being a retrieval operation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other getters (e.g., linear_getTeamLabels) beyond the resource type, but the resource name is specific enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. For a simple getter, some implicit usage context exists (e.g., when need workflow states), but the lack of any explicit direction warrants a low score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.